United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2820

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kassim L. Aquil

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: April 14, 2016

 Filed: May 4, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BRIGHT, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kassim Aquil (Aquil) appeals the 108-month sentence he received after

pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Aquil contends the district court1

 relied upon inaccurate

facts in selecting the sentence, failed to consider certain mitigating factors, and

imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We affirm.

Aquil’s firearm charge arose out of an encounter in which a Kansas City police

officer became concerned for Aquil’s safety after seeing him stumbling into a street

in an apparent intoxicated state. Aquil fled when the police officer approached to talk

to him, however, and the encounter ultimately led to Aquil’s arrest. In a search

conducted incident to arrest, a police officer found Aquil – a seven-time convicted

felon – in possession of a fully-operable antique firearm loaded with one live round

of .38 caliber ammunition. Aquil pled guilty to a one-count indictment for being a

felon in possession of live ammunition.

At sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 77

to 96 months based on an offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of VI. 

Aquil’s counsel asked the district court to vary downward from the advisory

Guidelines range and impose a sentence between 15 and 21 months. Aquil’s counsel

argued mitigating factors made a variance appropriate, including Aquil’s traumatic

upbringing (both physical abuse and sexual molestation as a child), and Aquil’s need

for intensive mental health counseling and treatment (resulting from an addiction to

phencyclidine (PCP), depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder). The district court

instead chose to vary upward from the advisory Guidelines range and imposed a 108-

month sentence. In a lengthy explanation, the district court referred to Aquil’s

extensive criminal history, his drug and alcohol abuse, the danger he presented to the

community, his continued pursuit of criminal activity while on probation and

supervision, and the need to deter others, as the reasons for an upward variance.

1

The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-
Reviewing the sentence to determine whether the district court committed any

procedural sentencing errors, see, e.g., United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 758-

59 (8th Cir. 2014), we reject Aquil’s contention that the district court relied upon an

inaccurate factual basis by speculating Aquil was likely intoxicated on PCP at the time

of the offense. Our review of the record shows the district court focused on Aquil’s

intoxication at the time of the offense (a point he does not contest), rather than the

specific intoxicant, as the reason for imposing an upward variance. (See Sent’g Tr.

15 (finding the sentence needed to protect the public from a “seven time, now eight

time convicted felon walking around in the neighborhoods, high, drunk or whatever

[he was] with a gun and ammunition in [his] pocket”)).

Reviewing the sentence for substantive reasonableness, see, e.g., United States

v. Woods, 670 F.3d 883, 888 (8th Cir. 2012), we reject Aquil’s contentions that the

district court improperly disregarded certain mitigating factors and chose a

substantively unreasonable sentence. The record shows the district court considered

the mitigating factors, examined all the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

did not analyze any improper factors, and gave an explanation of the factors it found

were most relevant in determining the ultimate sentence. See United States v. David,

682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012). We, therefore, find no basis for concluding the

sentence chosen by the district court is substantively unreasonable. 

For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court.

______________________________

-3-